Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

My questions are somewhat along the same lines. Mr. Gould is very welcome and I thank him for his input. I am looking at some information on the establishment of the Paris-based International Energy Agency in 1974. It was established in the wake of an oil crisis to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its member countries. Has it ever reassessed its policy direction in light of climate change? It would seem to me that this statement of aims does not match what we have to do in the current crisis, particularly given the Paris Agreement and the obligations thereunder.

The presentation states that even as renewables grow so too must the production of oil and gas and the conclusion that is arrived at is that we need more, and not less, investment in oil and gas over the next period. I find this very disturbing because I do not think that this helps us to meet targets under the Paris Agreement, nor, as we face a global crisis, does it convey any sense of urgency or that this planet is going to burn and we have to do something to stop it. As mentioned by Oil Change International, it finds the scenario, as a basis for new investment in oil and gas, as seriously bad information to give to governments. The witness said he cannot comment on what happens in Ireland because there is an in-depth review of Irish energy policy taking place. This worries me because an organisation that was set up to take advantage of the production of oil and gas in the middle of an oil crisis in 1974 is now advising the Government on how it will project its energy policy in the future.

In short, what we are saying, and what I would like the witness to comment on it, is that all countries, particularly a country like Ireland which has access to wave, water, wind and solar power, should be investing massively in these areas and divesting in fossil fuel energy. That is the purpose of the Bill that will be brought before the House for scrutiny next week. I would like the witness to comment on that in order to see how in his opinion we get the balance right and that we keep global warming below 2% if we are to meet Paris Agreement requirements. Does that mean the witness can really marry this contradiction that he has laid out before us that we need to invest more in the production more oil and gas because that is what he seems to be saying here?